Tuesday, September 27, 2011

On September 27 the Ministry of Education and Science announced the result of their latest aerial survey of radiation contamination they did over Gunma Prefecture, and many people are dismayed that the contamination in the prefecture looks worse than feared.

So far, the Ministry has done the aerial surveys and mapped air radiation and soil contamination in: Fukushima, Miyagi, Yamagata, Ibaraki, Tochigi, and Gunma.

From 9/27/2011 map, on air radiation (microsievert/hour, 1 meter off the ground):

Cesium-134 and -137 deposition (becquerels/square meter):

Professor Hayakawa's map that he's been updating since April (current version is 4.0):

No.Either you didn't check it out yourself or you are trying to disinform.

Look at the maps on pages 13 to 23 of the document (these are on total pages 34 to 44)

If you overlay these maps you'll quickly find out that the distribution of radionuclides is very dissimilar.

There even are widespread intensive transuranic (Plutonium etc) contaminations in many areas many hundreds of kilometers away from the Chernobyl NPP that have practically no Cesium or Strontium contamination.

Ermm. I am not all uber.If I were, I could, for example, scientifically explain why the maps (from Ukraine government) on page 17 (absolute page #38 of the document) do not seem to support the theory that plutonium fallout only occurs where cesium falls out.

I do not understand why plutonium fallout is high in some areas where no relevant cesium fallout has been found. Please especially look at the southern-southwestern regions.

But, I agree with you in another point.Truth (= "Wahrheit" in german) should be told to all and not only to the nuclear cartel insiders.

I am sure many people all over the world appreciate the work of LaPrimavera (who is being called "Ultraman" sometimes) for his great efforts to tell the world the truth. What he does really deserves the word "uber".I think I am only one of many many people who are grateful to him. Thanks again!

could you please substantiate your claims? Who are these 'some' you are talking about? Can you provide a link? Who are these 'smart people' you are talking about? Any links available?

I do not know about the credibility of Yablokov, but at least I know his name and I can check his data and conclusions (form the link). Your statement is pure fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), the information content of your post is ZERO (NIL - NADA)

I have studied those maps. I couldn't get Yablokov's book from your link, though, I downloaded it here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

If you check the maps for Belarus (pages 14-16 of the report), for example, you see that Strontium-90 and Plutonium are distributed on lower concentrations on a smaller area closer to the plant.

In the case of the comparative map, the Yablokov's book omitted the units used in the second map. If you go to the source, Ukraine National Report 2006, you can check the raw data, table 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.2.6 (Pages 16-20): chernobyl.undp.org/english/docs/ukr_report_2006.pdf Again, smaller area, closer to the plant, lower concentrations.

In fact the raw data show the same discrepancies as you can find when overlaying the contamination maps.

For example, Ukraininan westernmost oblast Zakarpatska, hundreds of kilometers west of Chernobyl, shows high plutonium contamination in contrast to comparatively low cesium contamination.

So the theory spread by the nuclear lobby that plutonium contamination concentrates near the accident sites seems definitely to be wrong. (I have to admit that I also believed that deception until I looked closer at the facts that usually are kept classified.)

However, it is essential for the nuclear industry to maintain their lie that it is sufficient to look at cesium contamination only.

Because, if people would look at other contaminants and not only at cesium, they would recognize that the contamination damage is way larger and more widespread than being suggested to the public.

An important part of the deception is the belief that lower becquerel counts automatically mean less health risk.This is grossly wrong because of various reasons.

First, as internal alpha radiation damage is officially considered at least twenty times more dangerous than gamma damage. So 100 Bq of plutonium are considered as dangerous as 2000 Bq of cesium.Second, as plutonium is way longer lived than cesium, 100 Bq of plutonium contamination is much, much more pollution than 2000 Bq of cesium when you look at the weight/mass of the contaminants.Third, plutonium does not conveniently decay in a few generations like the short-lived cesium. It causes quasi-permanent degradation of the land.Fourth, as plutonium usually is in the form of hot particles, it is way more "efficient" in causing cancers.And so on.

It is really sad to find how dense this web of deceptive lies is that the nuclear lobby spreads together with the mass media.

Atomfritz, I understand why you chose Zakarpatska as an example of your theory, as it's the only one which seems to correspond to it. Nice selection bias.

Still, compared to the other regions it had 91.5% of its territory contaminated with 40–100 Bq/m2 of Plutonium, as opposed to 35% contaminated with 2,000-4,000 Bq/m2 and 51% with 4,000-10,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137.

It's interesting that, among this ranges, you decided to use the highest value for Plutonium and the lowest one for Cs-137. ("So 100 Bq of plutonium are considered as dangerous as 2000 Bq of cesium.")

Any comments on the maps of contamination by Cs-137, Sr-90 and Plutonium in Belarus?

Nice try to twist Atomfritz's message and score off a strawman tactic. He pointed out that Plutonium was 20 times worse than Cesium for danger due to this being the statistical relation between internal alpha radiation and gamma radiation. Not because there coincidentally was the same ratio between the highest and lowest concentrations of each as well.

Nice try though, your determination to strike a blow for nuclear power industry shows a lot of determination if nothing else. I hope they reward you for your efforts with a nice little dose of plutonium waste, since you seem to be fairly fond of the stuff.

About my coverage of Japan Earthquake of March 11

I am Japanese, and I not only read Japanese news sources for information on earthquake and the Fukushima Nuke Plant but also watch press conferences via the Internet when I can and summarize my findings, adding my observations.

About This Site

Well, this was, until March 11, 2011. Now it is taken over by the events in Japan, first earthquake and tsunami but quickly by the nuke reactor accident. It continues to be a one-person (me) blog, and I haven't even managed to update the sidebars after 5 months... Thanks for coming, spread the word.------------------This is an aggregator site of blogs coming out of SKF (double-short financials ETF) message board at Yahoo.

Along with commentary on day's financial news, it also provides links to the sites with financial and economic news, market data, stock technical analysis, and other relevant information that could potentially affect the financial markets and beyond.

Disclaimer: None of the posts or links is meant to be a recommendation, advice or endorsement of any kind. The site is for information and entertainment purposes only.